There going to save, get ready for it £13 million a year, and here's how-

"Leading writers today rounded on the government for its "repugnant, foolish and pointlessly destructive" decision to axe all funding for a free book scheme that benefits 3.3 million youngsters a year.

Children's author Philip Pullman attacked the move as an "unforgivable disgrace", while the former poet laureate Sir Andrew Motion described the cut as "an act of gross cultural vandalism".

These uncompromising views were echoed by Viv Bird, chief executive of the Booktrust charity, who said she was "astounded and appalled" when told all government support for their work was going to be scrapped. "There was no dialogue. It was completely devastating," she said.

The Booktrust charity runs several programmes that together provide free books for children from the age of nine months until their first term of secondary school when they are 11, and is widely admired by teachers, parents and authors.

They began as a pilot project in 1992 but were awarded government funding in 2004 to become universal. But 10 days ago – despite having previously offered to take a 20% funding cut – the charity was told it was to lose 100% of its £13m-a-year government grant."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010...pullman-motion

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

There going to save, get ready for it £13 million a year, and here's how-

"Leading writers today rounded on the government for its "repugnant, foolish and pointlessly destructive" decision to axe all funding for a free book scheme that benefits 3.3 million youngsters a year.

Children's author Philip Pullman attacked the move as an "unforgivable disgrace", while the former poet laureate Sir Andrew Motion described the cut as "an act of gross cultural vandalism".

These uncompromising views were echoed by Viv Bird, chief executive of the Booktrust charity, who said she was "astounded and appalled" when told all government support for their work was going to be scrapped. "There was no dialogue. It was completely devastating," she said.

The Booktrust charity runs several programmes that together provide free books for children from the age of nine months until their first term of secondary school when they are 11, and is widely admired by teachers, parents and authors.

They began as a pilot project in 1992 but were awarded government funding in 2004 to become universal. But 10 days ago despite having previously offered to take a 20% funding cut the charity was told it was to lose 100% of its £13m-a-year government grant."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010...pullman-motion

I will probably be villainized for this but...

Is it a lot of money in the long run. No. Is it going to devastate children and leave them without an education. No. Is this basically yawn overall. Yes.

The main people hurt here is the book charity and the sellers of the books. If they have that great of a program, they can get their funding from the general public. As you have noted, 13m is not that much in the grand scheme and if the program is as vital as you make it out to be, the general public should be willing to step in as well. Otherwise, I assume that libraries still exist? Children will not go without books. Even if they cannot afford to buy them. Am I missing the horrible part somewhere? \

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

Is it a lot of money in the long run. No. Is it going to devastate children and leave them without an education. No. Is this basically yawn overall. Yes.

The main people hurt here is the book charity and the sellers of the books. If they have that great of a program, they can get their funding from the general public. As you have noted, 13m is not that much in the grand scheme and if the program is as vital as you make it out to be, the general public should be willing to step in as well. Otherwise, I assume that libraries still exist? Children will not go without books. Even if they cannot afford to buy them. Am I missing the horrible part somewhere? \

No the main hurt is to the lives of the children. This programme encourages parents to read to their children from a young age and provides them with books, which is especially important to poorer families. Libraries are one of the places where these books end up, take the funding away and the libraries won't stock them.

As for relying on charity, that takes time and resources and is sporadic and therefore not as reliable. The programme is able to continue offering the best service it can without the fear of dollars drying up. Your assumption that a worthwhile cause will always attract ample funding is severely wrong. I was talking with a friend just yesterday who told me that in Hampshire the charity that received the most money was guide dogs for the blind. A great cause to give to of course but many other charities really struggle to keep up like hospices for children, whilst the guide dogs for the blind has plenty of money to meet it's needs.

The government appears to be backtracking now, so we'll see what happens, but it's now saying it will continue the funding afterall. This will be another blow to the Libs here, who are ,in quotes, meant to be centre left. They were publicly silent on the issue.

This in the Independent yesterday-

"But in a joint statement, the Department for Education (DFE) and Booktrust said that the DFE would now continue to finance the programme which benefits 3.3 million children a year in England.

"The Department for Education and Booktrust are determined to ensure that reading for pleasure is a gift every child can enjoy. That is why the DFE will continue to fund Booktrust book-gifting programmes in the future," the statement said."
~ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...g-2169569.html

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

So parents are not going to read to their children unless you spend money on this program. Is that right? Books are freely available from the public library, and parents can read them. Here in the states they have what is called the SMART program. I am not sure of the level of gov't funding, though I am sure there is some, but all the readers in it volunteer, and the majority of the program directors are as well. The books are mostly donated by private individuals, or bought after doing fund-raisers to earn them. The programs are very successful. I will have to check how much funding they get from the gov't, but it is not much.

Don't they have libraries in England? My kids get plenty of books from there.

If we renamed this book give away as corporate welfare I'm sure people would change their tune.

But it's for the children.

Quote:

Controversial plans to close a number of libraries in Wirral have been approved.
Eleven libraries will be closed and more than 20 community centres and other cultural facilities transferred to community management.
Wirral Council said a review of its libraries and museums was needed to tackle its budgetary problems.

Seems to me that the right wing always makes the biggest stink about the smallest drops in the bucket when it comes to fiscal restraint. Fuck the Republicans for wanting to cut funding to the NSF--that's their awesome new idea for balancing our budget come the new session. Really? The NSF? That's the big waste of money? The tax cuts for the top 1% over 10 years could fund the NSF at current levels for 100 years. Yet it's the NSF that's the problem. Clearly. Fuck the Tories. Fuck the Republicans. Fuck you if you are on board with this bullshit.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Seems to me that the right wing always makes the biggest stink about the smallest drops in the bucket when it comes to fiscal restraint. Fuck the Republicans for wanting to cut funding to the NSF--that's their awesome new idea for balancing our budget come the new session. Really? The NSF? That's the big waste of money? The tax cuts for the top 1% over 10 years could fund the NSF at current levels for 100 years. Yet it's the NSF that's the problem. Clearly. Fuck the Tories. Fuck the Republicans. Fuck you if you are on board with this bullshit.

Well, I have not heard about cuts to the NSF, so a link here would be good. Also, I doubt that anyone believes that cutting the NSF alone will even come close to balancing the budget, so you are definitely overstating that point. I am not for cutting things indiscriminately, but I do believe that we need to start cutting even if it hurts. Where would you start the cutting BR? Military is a big target which would save a lot, but where else? You cannot keep everything, what pain are you willing to endure to bring the out of control spending into line?

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

Defense. Defense. Defense. Defense. Defense. DEFENSE. Defense. Close corporate tax loopholes. Increase the tax on the wealthy. Introduce new top end tax brackets. Reinstate the estate tax to higher levels at a higher threshold. Defense. Defense. Defense Defense Defense. Single Payer Healthcare, cutting out the middlemen and streamlining operations to bring cost per capita down. Increase the shit out of science funding. Increase the shit out of NASA's funding. The last two are called R&D. They'll pay for themselves from the future job growth we get as a result.

Oh yeah, cut defense. End all these wars immediately. Tear down these bases we have throughout the world. Properly tax hedge fund managers who pay a lower percentage on their billionaire incomes than their own secretaries.

Yes, tax the FUCK out of churches...with an exception if they meet the following qualifications:

1. If a minimum (very high) percentage of their GROSS income is charitably distributed
2. If said charitable distributions are equal opportunity and non-discriminatory with absolutely zero proselytizing strings attached
3. If said churches refrain from making political statements in favor of candidates or propositions (even in the wink & nod manner)

Now, some might argue that the third requirement violates their free speech. It does no such thing. Churches want to be treated in a special way--not to be taxed. Giving up their ability to influence government is just the price of admission. If churches want to support candidates or propositions, go right ahead! Nothing is stopping them! They just get taxed like the rest of the scam-artist corporations that peddle false hope. Churches are of the same ilk as those who sell everything from magic crystals to Enzyte.

Tax the future generations. They're going to be so fucking rich 'cause were doing such a great job running things that they can afford to pay more. Fucking fat cat infants mocking us from their bugaboos!

Tax the future generations. They're going to be so fucking rich 'cause were doing such a great job running things that they can afford to pay more. Fucking fat cat infants mocking us from their bugaboos!

It's ironic, but that's exactly what the Republicans are looking towards when they promote tax cuts for the wealthy. They honestly think that giving the wealthy enough money to buy a third Lambo is going to increase middle class wealth (in the future -- read 'future generations') which will increase the tax base and increase the Federal income. LMFAO, they honestly believe that. Fucking morons.

Reduction in income is not spending. Neither word is equal. Personal attacks on my honesty or integrity aside.

Yeah, go ahead and cut your working hours, and your salary in half, and explain that to your wife when suddenly you can't afford your mortgage. In the end, it makes no difference whether you cut your salary or spent it -- you end up with less left over.

It's ironic, but that's exactly what the Republicans are looking towards when they promote tax cuts for the wealthy....

It's ironic, but that's what BOTH PARTIES are doing when they BOTH fail to stop deficit spending.
It has nothing to do with cutting OR RAISING taxes... the entire problem is caused by SPENDING more than they have available, regardless of how much they have available.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...

It's ironic, but that's exactly what the Republicans are looking towards when they promote tax cuts for the wealthy. They honestly think that giving the wealthy enough money to buy a third Lambo is going to increase middle class wealth (in the future -- read 'future generations') which will increase the tax base and increase the Federal income. LMFAO, they honestly believe that. Fucking morons.

It's ironic, but that's exactly what the Democrats are looking towards when they promote government spending as the solution to all problems. They honestly think that welfare state will reduce unemployment and increase middle class wealth (in the future -- read 'future generations') which will increase the tax base and increase the Federal income. LMFAO, they honestly believe that. Fucking morons.

It's ironic, but that's exactly what the Democrats are looking towards when they promote government spending as the solution to all problems. They honestly think that welfare state will reduce unemployment and increase middle class wealth (in the future -- read 'future generations') which will increase the tax base and increase the Federal income. LMFAO, they honestly believe that. Fucking morons.

Agreed to the point that spending is necessary and has to be focused.

At home we spend. We spend on our necessities, on things that make our lives more enjoyable, and on investment for our future and our next generation. As a nation, we need to spend on the same things, for the same reasons.

We spend on education for our children to ensure our future generation is prepared to be productive. As a nation we need to spend on education for our citizens to ensure our future generation is prepared to be productive.

We spend on food and water for our families. As a nation we need to spend on social welfare for our citizens.

We spend on health care for our families...

Get the pattern?

When we're spending half our income at home on new security systems for our neighbors, buying luxuries for ourselves (equivalent to tax cuts for the rich) and cutting our kids' education, welfare and health care because we can't afford it all, that's when we know insanity has sunk in.

Yeah, go ahead and cut your working hours, and your salary in half, and explain that to your wife when suddenly you can't afford your mortgage. In the end, it makes no difference whether you cut your salary or spent it -- you end up with less left over.

Yes, but one is my money that I have worked for, and it is still not spending it. The other is taken from someone just because they have a certain amount of it. When they pay taxes it is very broadly spending by them for gov't services. But it is income for the gov't. When the gov't uses that income to buy a building, print money, or bomb Afghanistan, that is spending.

Surely you can see the difference. So back to your previous example. I have cut my income. How do I tell my wife? Honey, we are making less now, either you need to take on a new job or we have to cut our expenses. since money does not grow on trees, and I cannot print my own or simply take some from my richer neighbors without going to jail I have to alter my behavior or I will lose my necessities trying to keep the goodies. Isn't this simple basic economics?

Oh, and also, I would not say that the gov't reducing taxes is the same as me cutting hours. Not even close to the same thing. The only way they equate is that they result in lower income receipts from that particular source of income. Which is still not spending.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

The rich only got there because the American framework existed. Without the poor and middle classes to labor for them and buy their stuff, they would be nowhere. The higher tax rate is the price of admission. Maybe if there were no poverty and the salary gap weren't so huge, the rate could be lowered. But that's not the case.

If you get rich enough to pay that higher tax rate, you made it. And your life just got easier if you so choose. You should gladly pay more taxes to help reduce the stress of life's problems for those less fortunate. They are your brothers and sisters.

This neverending thirst for more and more money is rather sickening.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

At home we spend. We spend on our necessities, on things that make our lives more enjoyable, and on investment for our future and our next generation. As a nation, we need to spend on the same things, for the same reasons.

We spend on education for our children to ensure our future generation is prepared to be productive. As a nation we need to spend on education for our citizens to ensure our future generation is prepared to be productive.

We spend on food and water for our families. As a nation we need to spend on social welfare for our citizens.

We spend on health care for our families...

Get the pattern?

When we're spending half our income at home on new security systems for our neighbors, buying luxuries for ourselves (equivalent to tax cuts for the rich) and cutting our kids' education, welfare and health care because we can't afford it all, that's when we know insanity has sunk in.

Is the reason that all that can be used to explain this is analogies because no one would seriously claim that the entire future of humanity will be scuttled over this measure?

So parents are not going to read to their children unless you spend money on this program. Is that right? Books are freely available from the public library, and parents can read them. Here in the states they have what is called the SMART program. I am not sure of the level of gov't funding, though I am sure there is some, but all the readers in it volunteer, and the majority of the program directors are as well. The books are mostly donated by private individuals, or bought after doing fund-raisers to earn them. The programs are very successful. I will have to check how much funding they get from the gov't, but it is not much.

The two are not the same of course though. If you read about the Booktrust more in depth you'll see that their financial requirements are very different. The £13 million a year enabled ( and enables) the Booktrust to offer it's services to a much larger group of people than it had done, spreading across mostly England, but also Wales and Northern Ireland and thereby reaching an area with a population of 55 million as opposed to Oregon's 3.5 million people. Booktrust is also getting most of it's funding (£56 million a year through publishers and donations). The Tories though, and the Libs, made the decision to completely cut their funding without even consulting Booktrust, which is typical behavior for Tories.

One thing to consider too, given you must want the US government to stop funding 4% of Oregon's SMART programme is that it's going to get even worse. A Republican in that State want's places that offer the SMART programme to get more government funding in return. That will likely help spread the programme yet further. Make sure you vote Democrat next time round. (And it was a Democrat who was key in originally starting SMART).

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

At home we spend. We spend on our necessities, on things that make our lives more enjoyable, and on investment for our future and our next generation. As a nation, we need to spend on the same things, for the same reasons.

We spend on education for our children to ensure our future generation is prepared to be productive. As a nation we need to spend on education for our citizens to ensure our future generation is prepared to be productive.

We spend on food and water for our families. As a nation we need to spend on social welfare for our citizens.

We spend on health care for our families...

Get the pattern?

When we're spending half our income at home on new security systems for our neighbors, buying luxuries for ourselves (equivalent to tax cuts for the rich) and cutting our kids' education, welfare and health care because we can't afford it all, that's when we know insanity has sunk in.

So what you're saying is that government spending should be limited to necessities? You sound like a racist teabagger!

You can do better than that. How about you actually tell him what you specifically disagree with and why? Or can you not form a cogent argument to rebut tonton? Has that embarrassment led you to make this vacuous response?

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

The rich only got there because the American framework existed. Without the poor and middle classes to labor for them and buy their stuff, they would be nowhere. The higher tax rate is the price of admission. Maybe if there were no poverty and the salary gap weren't so huge, the rate could be lowered. But that's not the case.

If you get rich enough to pay that higher tax rate, you made it. And your life just got easier if you so choose. You should gladly pay more taxes to help reduce the stress of life's problems for those less fortunate. They are your brothers and sisters.

This neverending thirst for more and more money is rather sickening.

Of course you realize the middle class only go there because the rich were willing to risk their money to create jobs and businesses. Without that they would be nowhere. The higher the tax rate the less money there is to promote private business and so the poor and unemployed have no hope for change. Unless they want to be a temp census worker every tenth year.

The government should gladly spend less and reduce tax rates and encourage savings and investment which are the real engine of the economy.

The government's never ending thirst for more and more money is sickening!

The rich only got there because the American framework existed. Without the poor and middle classes to labor for them and buy their stuff, they would be nowhere. The higher tax rate is the price of admission. Maybe if there were no poverty and the salary gap weren't so huge, the rate could be lowered. But that's not the case.

If you get rich enough to pay that higher tax rate, you made it. And your life just got easier if you so choose. You should gladly pay more taxes to help reduce the stress of life's problems for those less fortunate.

Brainwashed indeed.

As far as "selfish pricks"...I find it rather ironic that someone wishing to keep the money they've earned is a "selfish prick" but the one who wants to take from those people by force and give to someone who hasn't earned it isn't. Odd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

They are your brothers and sisters.

They are?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

This neverending thirst for more and more money is rather sickening.

Indeed it is. But it's impolite (and possibly treasonous) to speak of the government so candidly.

You blather on, foaming at the mouth with great weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth about the "rich" being greedy selfish bastards for wishing to keep the money they've earned and their alleged thirst for more but see no irony at all in the fact that you advocate for the government, whose only power is force and coercion, taking more and more money from more and more people.

Sorry if my posts seemed either brainwashed or selfish. I am trying to have a civil exchange here. I take offense at being called a prick as well. \

Well you better come to terms with it. Apparently you are brainwashed, selfish and a prick...because you don't agree with BR. I swear the Irony-meter must have gone off the charts and broke with his post.

So what you're saying is that government spending should be limited to necessities?

Yep. Like investment in our middle class, working class and future generations that benefit them directly, not indirectly through a circuitous route that almost never gets there (if "there" is actually the target, and not just a big fat lie -- which it seems more and more to be).

Necessities like education, health care and social welfare that directly, not indirectly, enable our middle class to be more productive -- and also to live with a higher standard of living as an added benefit. Necessities like infrastructure and law enforcement. Necessities like research and development of technologies that will get us off of foreign dependence on oil.

Making the rich richer with only indirect benefit if any to the middle class is most certainly not a necessity. Having a global, rather than local, military presence that we can't afford is not a necessity, except maybe in the eyes of the excessively paranoid.